More Related Content
More from cydtopping
Nga expectations
- 1. If you are using the telephone: Dial: +1 (914) 339-0030 Access Code: 349-391-994
- 2. Combining the Expertise of Three World-Class Organizations 2
- 3. Next Generation Assessments: What To Expect Susan Gendron Senior Fellow March 1, 2012
- 4. WHY?
- 5. 1 Shanghai-China 556 PISA 2 3 Korea Finland 539 536 2009 4 5 Hong Kong-China Singapore 533 526 6 Canada 524 7 New Zealand 521 Overall 8 Japan 520 Reading 9 Australia 515 Scale 10 Netherlands 508 17 United States 500 20 Germany 497 Significantly Above 21 Ireland 496 OECD Average 22 France 496 Not Significantly Different 25 United Kingdom 494 (OECD Average 493) 33 Spain 481 Significantly below 43 Russian Federation 459 OECD Average 48 Mexico 425 53 Brazil 412 57 Indonesia 402
- 6. 1 Shanghai-China 600 PISA 2 3 Singapore Hong Kong-China 562 555 2009 4 6 Korea Finland 546 541 9 Japan 529 Overall 10 Canada 527 Math 11 Netherlands 526 13 New Zealand 519 Scale 15 Australia 514 16 Germany 513 Significantly Above 22 France 497 OECD Average 28 United Kingdom 492 Not Significantly 31 United States 487 Different (OECD Average 496) 32 Ireland 487 Significantly below 34 Spain 483 OECD Average 38 Russian Federation 468 51 Mexico 419 57 Brazil 386 61 Indonesia 371
- 7. 1 Shanghai-China 575 PISA 2 Finland 554 3 Hong Kong-China 549 2009 4 Singapore 542 5 Japan 539 6 Korea 538 7 New Zealand 532 Overall 8 Canada 529 Science 10 Australia 527 Scale 11 Netherlands 522 13 Germany 520 Significantly Above 16 United Kingdom 514 OECD Average 20 Ireland 508 Not Significantly United States 502 23 Different (OECD Average 501) 27 France 498 Significantly below 36 Spain 488 OECD Average 39 Russian Federation 478 50 Mexico 416 53 Brazil 405 60 Indonesia 383
- 8. Reading Risk Mapping State Proficiency Standards onto NAEP Scales, IES August 2011
- 9. Proficiency Grade 4 Reading 2009 Required Proficient NAEP Score Florida 74 % 206 Massachusetts * 54 % 234 Missouri 47 % 229 New York 77 % 200 Oregon 84 % 177 Washington 73 % 205 Texas 84 % 188
- 10. Reading Risk Mapping State Proficiency Standards onto NAEP Scales, IES August 2011
- 11. Proficiency Grade 8 Reading 2009 Required Proficient NAEP Score Florida 54 % 262 Massachusetts 79 % 249 Missouri * 50% 267 New York 68 % 247 Oregon 69% 250 Texas 94 % 201
- 12. Math Risk Mapping State Proficiency Standards onto NAEP Scales, IES August 2011
- 13. Proficiency Grade 4 Mathematics 2009 Required Proficient NAEP Score Florida 75 % 225 Massachusetts* 48 % 255 Missouri 45 % 246 NewYork 87 % 207 Oregon 77 % 214 Washington 52 % 243 Texas 85 % 214
- 14. Math Risk Mapping State Proficiency Standards onto NAEP Scales, IES August 2011
- 15. Proficiency Grade 8 Mathematics 2009 Required Proficient NAEP Score Florida 66 % 266 Massachusetts* 49 % 300 Missouri 47 % 287 New York 80 % 249 Oregon 71 % 266 Washington 53 % 270 Texas 83 % 254
- 16. Common Core State Standards • Define the knowledge and skills students need for college and career • Developed voluntarily and cooperatively by states; 46 states and D.C. have adopted • Provide clear, consistent standards in English language arts/Literacy and mathematics Source: www.corestandards.org
- 17. Key Advances of the Common Core ANCHORED IN COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS
- 18. Common Core Research • 1900 entry level courses • Instructor ratings • 25 areas, 14 general education, • Reviewed syllabi, assignments and exams 18
- 19. Key Findings • CCSS applicable to success in a wide range of courses • Challenge level is sufficient • Coherent representation of knowledge necessary • Core of knowledge is common across general education and career courses • Career areas tend to have knowledge profiles that differ from general education 19
- 21. Summative Assessments Today Measure proficiency against state standards, not agreed- upon standards Results often delivered months after tests are given Accommodations for special education and ELL students vary Most administered on paper
- 22. The Assessment Challenge How do we get from here... ...to here? Common Core Common Core State Standards State Standards All students All students specify K-12 specify K-12 leave high school leave high school expectations for expectations for college and college and college and college and career ready career ready career readiness career readiness ...and what can an assessment system do to help?
- 23. Next Generation Assessments • More rigorous tests measuring student progress toward “college and career readiness” • Have common, comparable scores across member states, and across consortia • Provide achievement and growth information to help make better educational decisions and professional development opportunities • Assess all students, except those with “significant cognitive disabilities” • Administer online, with timely results • Use multiple measures Source: Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 pp. 18171- 85
- 24. Who are they and why are there two? 24
- 25. A National Consor tium of States • 28 states representing 44% of K-12 students • 21 governing, 7 advisory states • Washington state is fiscal agent
- 26. Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) 26
- 27. A Balanced Assessment System Summative assessments Benchmarked to college and career readiness Common Common Core State Core State Teachers and Standards schools have All students All students Standards specify information and leave leave specify K-12 tools they need high school high school K-12 expectations to improve college college expectations for college teaching and and career and career for college and career learning ready ready and career readiness readiness Teacher resources for formative Interim assessment assessments practices Flexible, open, used for to improve instruction actionable feedback
- 28. Using Computer Adaptive Technology for Summative and Interim Assessments
- 29. A Balanced Assessment System English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3-8 and High School School Year Last 12 weeks of the year* DIGITAL CLEARINGHOUSE of formative tools, processes and exemplars; released items and tasks; model curriculum units; educator training; professional development tools and resources; scorer training modules; and teacher collaboration tools. Optional Interim Optional Interim Summative Assessment Ass essment Performance Tasks Summative End For Accountability Of Year Adaptive Computer Adaptive Computer Adaptive • Reading Assessment for Assessment and Assessment and • Writing Accountability Performance Tasks Performance Tasks • Math Scope, sequence, number and timing of interim assessments locally determined Re-take option *Time windows may be adjusted based on results from the research agenda and final implementation decisions.
- 30. Goal #1: Create High Quality Assessments • Summative Assessment Components: – Performance-Based Assessment (PBA) administered as close to the end of the school year as possible. The ELA/literacy PBA will focus on writing effectively when analyzing text. The mathematics PBA will focus on applying skills, concepts, and understandings to solve multi-step problems requiring abstract reasoning, precision, perseverance, and strategic use of tools – End-of-Year Assessment (EOY) administered after approx. 90% of the school year. The ELA/literacy EOY will focus on reading comprehension. The math EOY will be comprised of innovative, machine-scorable items • Formative Assessment Components: – Early Assessment designed to be an indicator of student knowledge and skills so that instruction, supports and professional development can be tailored to meet student needs – Mid-Year Assessment comprised of performance-based items and tasks, with an emphasis on hard-to-measure standards. After study, individual states may consider including as a summative component 30
- 31. Goal #1: Create High Quality Assessments The PARCC assessments will allow us to make important claims about students’ knowledge and skills. •In English Language Arts/Literacy, whether students: – Can Read and Comprehend Complex Literary and Informational Text – Can Write Effectively When Analyzing Text – Have attained overall proficiency in ELA/literacy •In Mathematics, whether students: – Have mastered knowledge and skills in highlighted domains (e.g. domain of highest importance for a particular grade level – number/ fractions in grade 4; proportional reasoning and ratios in grade 6) – Have attained overall proficiency in mathematics 31
- 32. Goal #1: Create High Quality Assessments English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics, Grades 3-11 Optional & Flexible Diagnostic Assessment Mid-Year Assessment Performance-Based End-of-Year • Early indicator of student •Performance-based Assessment (PBA) Assessment knowledge and skills to •Emphasis on hard-to- •Extended tasks •Innovative, computer-based inform instruction, supports, measure standards •Applications of concepts and items and PD •Potentially summative skills Speaking And Summative, Non-summative, Listening Required assessment optional assessment
- 33. Technology Implications • Readiness survey – March 20th • CCSS expectations • Technology plan – Vision – Define the Learning you want for your students – Strategy – One to One, 24/7 33
- 34. Significant Shifts • Performance Tasks – Close Reading – Informational Text – Analytical writing – Mathematical Practices • Technology Enhanced Questions • Expanded Accommodations 34
- 35. Evidence-Based Design Framework Observation Observation Interpretation Interpretation “Assessment Triangle” Cognition Cognition
- 37. Item Exemplars: Technology Enhanced and Constructed Response
- 38. Item Exemplars: Technology Enhanced and Constructed Response
- 39. Item Exemplars: Technology Enhanced and Constructed Response
- 40. Item Exemplars: Per formance Task Performance Task drawn from the Ohio Performance Assessment Project.
- 41. Item Exemplars: Per formance Task (cont’d) Performance Task drawn from the Ohio Performance Assessment Project.
- 42. Item Exemplars: Per formance Task (cont’d) Performance Task drawn from the Ohio Performance Assessment Project.
- 43. “Hurdles Race”
- 44. Think of the Content involved • Interpreting distance-time graphs in a real-world context • Realizing “to the left” is faster • Understanding points of intersection in that context (they’re tied at the moment) • Interpreting the horizontal line segment • Putting all this together in an explanation
- 54. How Can You Prepare? • Understand your needs and develop a transition plan • Create awareness with your staff • Rigorous, ongoing PD for teachers and leaders
- 55. Common Core Readiness Assessment • Standards Alignment • Design for Rigor and Relevance • Active Learning Strategies • Personalization • Literacy • Mathematics • Rewards and Grading • Technology 55
- 56. Common Core PD Continuum General Staff General Staff ELA Teachers Content Area Content Area Math Teachers Awareness Awareness ELA Teachers Teachers Teachers Math Teachers COURSE 1: COURSE 1: COURSE 1: COURSE 1: Driving Putting Text First: Content Area Making Sense of Student A Focus on Literacy: Math: A Focus on Achievement Complexity, Range, Engaging Students Reasoning and With the and Quality With Complex Text Discourse Common Core COURSE 2: COURSE 2: COURSE 2: Building Academic Mathematical Vocabulary: A Focus Language: Building a Thinking: A Focus on on Academic and Bridge to Text-Based Representation and Domain-Specific Writing Procedural Fluency Words COURSE 3: COURSE 3: COURSE 3: Rigor and Problem Solving: A Writing Arguments Research: Building Focus on Developing and Conducting Writing Proficiency inStudents’ Research: A Focus the Content Areas Disposition, on Using Evidence Confidence, and Competence 56
- 57. • Preparing students for annual academic growth even as the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Assessments increase proficiency requirements • Implementing effective support, supervision, and evaluation systems in the face of inadequate time and scarce resources • Adopting leadership strategies that empower staff to become agents of change and transform the system June 24 – 27 | ORLANDO www.modelschoolsconference.com
- 58. 58
- 60. For more information SAP@scholastic.com
- 61. Q&A
- 62. www.scholasticachievementpartners.com SAP@scholastic.com
Editor's Notes
- TODD
- 25 th last time
- Last time 21
- 2 nd in th eGrade 4 from Proficient
- Missouri number one
- Second in the country
- Third in the country
- TALKING POINTS MATHEMATICS Focus, coherence and clarity Focus on key topics at each grade level Coherent progressions across grade levels Addresses long-heard criticism of mile-wide, inch-deep math curricula Procedural fluency and understanding of concepts and skills Content standards require both conceptual understanding and procedural fluency Mathematical proficiencies Mathematical proficiencies students should develop (e.g., abstract reasoning, modeling, precision, perseverance, strategic use of tools, making arguments) Using mathematics to understand a problem – even in new or unfamiliar contexts Organized around conceptual categories Promotes various approaches to high school curriculum Standards are organized into conceptual categories and models of traditional, integrated, & advanced courses ELA/LITERACY Reading Balance of literature and informational texts Focus on text complexity and what students read Writing Emphasis on argument and informative/explanatory writing Writing about sources (evidence) – answer questions that require students to have read the text Speaking and Listening Inclusion of formal and informal talk Literacy standards for history, science and technical subjects Promotes the idea that teaching literacy skills is not just the job of the English teacher Complements rather than replaces those subjects BOTH CONTENT AREAS Anchored in college and career readiness Explicitly define the knowledge and skills that students must master to be college and career ready by the end of high school, and the knowledge and skills in each grade that build towards that goal
- TALKING POINTS PARCC is an alliance of 24 states, educating nearly 25 million students, that are working together to develop a common set of K-12 assessments in English and math anchored in what it takes to be ready for college and careers. PARCC is led by 17 governing board states (and D.C.) represented in Dark Blue. CLICK: The chair of the governing board is Mitchell Chester, Education Commissioner of Massachusetts, and the state of Florida is serving as its fiscal agent. CLICK: Achieve is the project manager for PARCC, essentially serving as the staff for the consortium and coordinating the work. Collectively the PARCC states educate nearly 25 million students. Governing States will pilot and field test the assessment system components over the next three years and administer the new assessment system during the 2014-15 school year. Governing States will use the results from the PARCC assessments in their state accountability systems The chief state school officers of the Governing States serve on the PARCC Governing Board and make decisions on behalf of the Partnership on major policies and operational procedures Participating States (light blue) provide staff to serve on PARCC ’s design committees, working groups, and other task forces established by the Governing Board to conduct the work necessary to design and develop PARCC’s proposed assessment system. By 2014–15, any state that remains in PARCC must commit to statewide implementation and administration of the Partnership’s assessment system Any PARCC Participating State prepared to make the commitments and take on the responsibilities of a Governing State can become one NOTES Governing Board: Comprised of K-12 chiefs from Governing Board States Technical Advisory Committee: Comprised of state/national assessment experts Leadership Team: Comprised of delegates of K-12 chiefs from Governing Board States (e.g., Assoc. Supt for Curriculum, Assessment and/or Instruction) ACCR: Comprised of national and state postsecondary leaders Operational Working Groups: Comprised of national, state, and local experts and leaders in their specific areas of expertise
- Assessment system that balances summative, interim, and formative components for ELA and mathematics: Summative Assessment (Computer Adaptive) Mandatory comprehensive assessment in grades 3–8 and 11 (testing window within the last 12 weeks of the instructional year) that supports accountability and measures growth Selected response, short constructed response, extended constructed response, technology enhanced, and performance tasks Interim Assessment (Computer Adaptive) Optional comprehensive and content-cluster assessment Learning progressions Available for administration throughout the year Selected response, short constructed response, extended constructed response, technology enhanced, and performance tasks Formative Processes and Tools Optional resources for improving instructional learning Assessment literacy
- Overview of two summative assessment components: Performance-Based Assessment: Administered as close to the end of the year as possible Will include essays and other high-quality, complex items. End-of-Year: Computer-scored, but would be far from the traditional “multiple choice” tests. There will be multistep problems and tasks that students must complete in order to find the correct answer. Overview of formative components: Early Assessments: Designed to be administered close to the beginning of the year. Will provide an early snapshot of achievement knowledge and skills so that educators can tailor instruction, supports for students, and professional development to meet students ’ needs. Mid-Year Assessment: Designed to be administered near the middle of the school year. Performance-based Will focus on hard-to-measure standards in the CCSS Teachers could score this assessment to get quick feedback on student learning relative to the CCSS. These components are: are formative assessments are developed by PARCC with its grant funds are available to all PARCC states and their local districts are intended to be administered early and midway through the school year however, allow for flexible administration-- they can be administered at locally determined times, including at the discretion of the classroom teacher can be scored quickly -- some can be computer administered and scored, others can be scored by the classroom teacher -- so that teachers can have timely information that can inform instruction for their students
- Based on the priority purposes for the assessments, the PARCC states are designing the assessments so that they enable us to make the following claims about students: ELA/literacy: Students can read and comprehend complex literary and informational text Can write effectively to sources Have attained overall proficiency in ELA/literacy – e.g. whether they are “college- and career-ready” in ELA/literacy by the end of high school or are on-track in earlier grades. Mathematics: Students have mastered the knowledge & skills in highlighted domains in mathematics – these are the domains of highest importance for a particular grade level. For example, in grade 4, whether students have mastered numbers and fractions. The highlighted domain varies from grade-level to grade-level, depending on the area of focus emphasized in the CCSS. Have attained overall proficiency in mathematics – e.g. whether they are “college- and career-ready” in mathematics by the end of high school or are on-track in earlier grades.